Nikkor 24-120 f/4 VR will be released this year

Nikon will announce a new Nikkor 24-120 f/4 VR lens (FX of course) this year. The Google translation said "soon", but I have no idea how soon that would be. I got this info from one of the forum members I regularly follow on various Asian sites (mainly China and Japan). This time I will not post a direct link to the forum thread in order to protect their identity.

I have not received any other confirmations on this lens yet and that's why I will rate this rumor @ 75% probability.

There is also a word on the street about a new Nikkor 28-300 f/3.5-5.6 lens and even a new full frame camera in a small(-er) body but I am not sure about the reliability of the source. Maybe he/she/it will read this message and send me more details here.

Awesome lead, maybe it actually has begun and I didn’t notice. I’m a bit concerned about such a long range with so many people talking about how this leads to compromised image quality. But if Nikon can pull off a descent 24-120 VR, this would be the ultimate walk-around lens! And such a lens would be a perfect and necessary kit lens for release with the… D700x/D800/D900 or whatever it’s called.

Davo

Maybe a kit lens for the eventual D700s in the second half of 2010?
Would a D700x/D800/D900 style camera be too high end to come with a kit lens?

PHB

At ISO 1600, people using a D700x based on the D3x sensor are going to need all the light they can find… An f/4 kit lens is probably not going to make much sense, any more than selling the D3 with a kit lens would make sense.

twoomy

D3x sensor… common use: landscape photography. F8 or F11 on a tripod at ISO 100 or 200. Makes sense to me… but only if a new lens like this can resolve for the D3x sensor and has reasonable corner sharpness.

Kon Reckwell

why the hell would you use a cheapo consumer zoom for landscape when the 14-24/24-70/70-200 more than covers this range? And don’t say cost, because if you can afford a D3X, you can afford it.

Landscapes

because typically a f/4 lens will be sharper for landscapes stopped down to f/8-f/16 than the 2.8 ones.

Twoomy

Hi Kon Reckwell: You make several mis-assumptions:

1. Just because a lens isn’t 2.8 doesn’t mean it’s a cheapo consumer lens. (I shoot mostly with the 24mm 3.5 PC-E and that’s no hunk of junk.) The hope here is that Nikon’s new line of 4.0 lenses are not el-cheapo lenses like the existing POS 24-120.

2. While the trinity of 2.8 zooms with a D3X may be the ultimate in quality, some of us do a lot of work in the backcountry and actually have to hike to our photography. Why carry overly big lenses if you’re just going to shoot at F/11 and there is a cheaper smaller alternative? Throwing money at the most expensive solution isn’t always the BEST solution.

Mikael

The high-end part I can understand, but the part of the D3x being unable to cope with poor lighting? Let’s see, what cameras are better than the D3x at dealing with poor light: D3s, D3 and D700…. The D3x is the fourth best high-iso camera ever built by Nikon, and you’re saying f/4 is not enough, as it can’t deal with low-light?

Joe R

Also, 1600, f/4 with VR is kind of a lot of light anyway.

PHB

Not saying that, just saying that it is really not going to make much sense to have an f/4 kit lens.

I don’t think there is really any point in a ‘kit’ lens for that type of camera. The only reason I took a kit lens with my D300 was that Costco had an offer on that made the D300+ 18-200 almost the same price as a D300 from elsewhere. So then I had to sell the second 18-200 since I had already bought it.

Most people still don’t believe how great the D3x sensor is, and by “pixel binding” (down sample the 25MP images to 12MP in proper ways) the difference to D3/D700 is very very small (and of course you have the freedom of going higher resolution). There is a reason DxO had to grant the highest score to D3x sensor and the curves there show how the D3x images compete with D3/D700’s down sampled. The D3s sensor is of a new generation and a notch above though.

Richard

I am beginning to think that the sensor yields may be the answer to the consumer higher res camera. Everyone knows that chips of every sort have a bell curve of their capabilities. Some simply are not as good as the rest and a very few are truly exceptional. In the sensors, is it possible that product which passes the dead pixel standard, but do not pass the high ISO noise standard might be a candidate for the lower level camera? It would have pretty much the same output as the professional one until you got into the higher ISOs. That would make an unsalable product into one which could not only be sold, but would be happily received.

PHB

I agree that to compare like with like we really should be considering noise at a particular resolution. But the description of the DxO tests suggests that they do not take resolution into account. The D3x suggests that they are compensating for resolution which is different.

In theory the max ISO rating is determined by the highest ISO rating that can be used and keep noise under a specific threshold. I would like to know if that is based on the JPEG output or the RAW output. The lack of difference between the D300 and D300s suggests that maybe there has not been a major breakthrough in sensor design, rather they have got better at tweaking the JPEG conversion to eliminate extraneous noise.

I certainly would not say no to a D3x if offered one! But the price is a bit out of reach. If you add the price of the lenses required to do it justice you are looking at the price of a new car.

Any camera with that sensor is going to cost at least as much as the current D700. So I really don’t see the point of a cheapie lens. Sure you can take great photos with an f/4 lens. But to get 24 quality MP you are going to need to choose with great care.

That ISO 1600 says to me that you are going to want to get a lot of light in to get the best from it in most handheld situations. A lens you can only use on a tripod or with flash is not a kit lens in my view. Nor can I remember taking many landcapes at mid range focal lengths. Until I got the ultra-wide I seemed to always want to go wider or narrower.

Davo

How cool. Will we see a mid-level F4 zoom trinity? The overlap in FL is also welcomed as long as the increase in FL don’t compromise IQ. It’d really be nice if all you give up from the f2.8 pro zooms is the extra stop but IQ remains similar, all in a smaller and cheaper package.
Any 16-35 reviews yet other than Bob Krist’s blog post?

Joe R

I love my cheap, plastic DX 55-200 VR and 18-55 VRII because I’m able to get extremely sharp images out of them at f/8. If this is sharp (enough) at f/4, I may be able to replace both of those with this.

Unfortunately, if it’s an FX and going to be sharpish at f/4 it’s going to be pricey… more than $1000 unless it distorts oddly or is plasticy- such that only us DXers will want it.

It turns out that 24 is probably wide enough for me at the low end of a zoom.

low

Dun dun dun

Marc W.

I wonder if this 24-120mm will suck like the last one.

PHB

I was wondering if the decision to go for an f/4 here might have been driven by the desire to erase the memory of the f/3.5-5.6

priceman

FINALLY!!! The current 24-120 VR lens has been tempting me oooh sooooo much, but after reading all the crummy reviews on it, i’ve decided to stay away from it…

tim

Dont go for the current 24 120… its horrible.

NikoDoby

We were just discussing Nikon making more f4 lenses in the forum 🙂

PHB

Looks like the FX kit lens. So may be relatively aggressively priced. Canon’s is a 24-105 which is probably not so useful as a walkaround lens.

Good choice for a crossover lens. Dovetails nicely with the DX ulta-wides at the short end and almost certainly whatever the 80-400 replacement is at the long.

The Canon 28-300 costs $2400 and that is for a push-pull model. Back to the 1980s time. Came out in 2004. Does not seem like a very high probability Nikon would be copying this one to me. Unless Nikon have really excelled, this is going to be a brute of a lens to carry about, much heavier than a magic three lens and suffer from barrel, pincushion and mustache.

It would be a real achievement to make a lens this size that is as good as the DX 18-200. If it isn’t at least $1500 better, then what would be the point? You could buy a D300s and 18-200 for the likely price of this lens and the combo would be smaller and lighter than just the lens on its own.

That is not to say that Nikon couldn’t do something that blew away the competition. The 18-200 was an unprecedented super-zoom. But I would be very skeptical. On the other hand, Nikon has sold over a million of those 18-200s.

Why? The 24-70mm is a sweet piece of glass. I hope you’re not actually disappointed in light of a rumored 24-120 f/4 that could be terrible compared to the 24-70mm.

LGo

You will have reason to regret buying a Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 if Nikon releases a Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 VR. But the Nikkor 24-120mm f/4 VR is a different lens and is not only 1-stop slower, but would likely not be as good as the 24-70mm given its 5x zoom range.

priceman

hmmm now, how much is this bad boy going to cost??? the current POS 24-120 VR cost like $600-$700…. will they nano coat this bad buy, put it in a magnesium body, and charge $1200 for it?…. that would suck.

LGo

The constant f/4 at 120mm alone will mean that this lens would cost more. I expect this lens would be priced in the same vicinity as the 16-35mm f/4 VR.

LGo

This is great! 🙂

This will be my new walk-around glass for my FX cameras.

Ben H

I love my 18-200 and was hoping for something similar when I got the d900 so I hope the 28-300 rumor is true. I hope it’s better than Canon’s 28-300 in IQ.

If you love the 18-200, you should stick to DX! Because even if such big lens for FX are feasible, they are going to be expensive (very), not very fast, long, and heavy.. 🙁

Although I don’t own a 18-200, I *do* love my 16-85! It’s not only that it’s cheaper than say a 24-70, it’s also a nice combo (D70/16-85) to carry for climbing 1500m up!

But this news makes me reconsider the FX game entirely.. :-). Of course, the FX camera should also be smaller, lighter, and the lens should be _at least_ as good in IQ as the 16-85.. Or maybe we should all own an FX/DX couple.. that would be good for Nikon’s benefits 🙂 🙂

Cheers,
Christophe.

= It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future. –Yogi Berra =

Ben H

Too bad it’s not a 24-120 f/2.8 VR… what a monster that would be but I’d absolutely buy it.

LGo

A 24-120mm f/2.8 VR would be as big and heavy as a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, and much more expensive! Its 5x zoom range will also mean it will not be a very good.

Eric

Wow, seriously? People are getting way too attached to their zooms. I bet you could walk around with a 50mm prime on the camera with an 85mm1/.8 in one jacket pocket and a 24mm/2.8 in the other and accomplish 99% of what you could do with some monster 24-120mm/2.8, $2000+ zoom. And actually, you could do some things with the primes you can’t do with the zoom thanks to the faster apertures.

No wonder I see so many fat photographers, they refuse to use their legs.

ArthurH

:):)
And I completely agree, just hope they update the 24 (affordable one) and 85.

Fredbare

Hmm, a ‘Small Body FX’ camera plus the 24 – 120 FX kit lens would make a lot of sense particularly if the camera falls into an ‘affordable’ bracket.
Anyone not waiting for an affordable FX camera?

I don’t want a 24-120 F/4. That range is too big to make that lens a hit. After AF-S 16-35 F/4 VR, my wish is something like 35-105 F/4 VR.

Chris P

Plus 1 on that. I too was hoping for a partner lens around 28/35-105, but I don’t see how this 24-120 can be it. If it is of the same apparent build/optical quality as the 16-35 f4 it is going to have to be a very complicated optical design with many elements, and almost as heavy as a 70-200 f2.8. I suspect that this lens, if it appears, will be of lighter build quality and probably suffer some of the problems of the Canon 24-105 at one, or both, end(s).

Mike again

great!!
A walkaround I have been waiting for, the reason why I bought Tamron 24-135 as the current Nikon 24-120 is not good at all.
If Nikon really make it fixed f4 that’s awesome, hope this is really true and it’s sharp this time!!!

I hope this is true because I’ve been looking forward to seeing a lens like this from Nikon. I was hoping that they would make it a little longer and come out with a 24-135mm VRII, but I also understand that doing that would make it harder to maintain the f/4 constant aperture.

I was disappointed when Nikon came out with the D700 and all they had to offer as a walk around lens was the current 24-120 VR. Although that lens has performed better for me on an FX sensor than it did on a DX sensor or back when I shot film, I was still disappointed in it’s optical performance.

This rumored lens would definitely be a nice improvement optically, and the f/4 constant aperture would also be nice. The current lens may say it’s an 3.5-5.6, but it doesn’t take it long to get into 5.6 territory. Putting the new VRII on it would also be a nice addition.

m0gu3

Great thing, the lens missing now is a 70-200/4 VR. And let´s see, how much the 24-120/4 VR will be …

mark

as usual $1499 and 1399 euro. or may be nikon will have all the guts for a price bracket of $1799.
No worries, all the fanboys automatically assume it is due to currency exchange rate, inflation, or simply its nikkor, so it has to be expensive.

photogradstudent

I’ll be in line to pick this up!

Anonymous

i think i’ve post this long time ago.
we will have 24-120 28-300 this year maybe new d90 with 18-135 vr
and next year 24-70 2.8 vr will replace the old one with smaller fx .
the rumor from the west is just a dream from someone
i think why they can know
there’s not a head quarter no factory have any source
they’re all just predict wish or else
but the rumor from east is the fact that have clue
so stay eyed on the west is more useful.
other than japan and china dont forget thailand
u know that mid price product made where?
and why the rumor here is faster and more accury

Anonymous

sorry “so stay eyed on the east is more useful.”
and forget about 70-200 f4 now’s not a time fot it
maybe next 2years

CDM

And you are smoking exactly what…?

Jason

If the 24-120mm/f4 is the next in a line of new f4/FX zooms, it’s an interesting clue to the next one after that: Nikon may be giving us keen amateurs a bit of overlap in the range. So . . . . (warning! uninformed speculation follows!)
– Pro range (f2.8 + F4): 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 200-400
– Keen amateur range (F4): 16-35, 24-120, 100-300?

nobody

I’m afraid a constant f4 24-120mm would be at least as big and heavy as the 24-70 f2.8, maybe even more. So it would completely miss the main point of f4 zooms, that is being smaller and lighter than the f2.8 zooms. IMO, a compact 28-105 f4 would make much more sense.

But they have already managed to make a new 16-35 f4 that is bigger than the old 17-35 f2.8, so I’m afraid a big and heavy f4 standard lens is also possible 🙁

Char

If you need small and light, maybe FX is not the way to go. Plus, the FBs are really quite small (35/2 AF-D, 50/1.4 AF-D, 85/1.8 AF-D), you could consider that as well.

NIKONKON

Heh, nobody – you obviously know nothing about optical construction, but oh well, there are so many people that claim to be “experts” who don’t know their a#$ from their elbow.
I do know something about otics and am willing to bet that 24-120 can/will be HALF the size of 24-70 and considerably lighter. Then I’ll come back later and slap you with your silly little uneducated comment.

nobody

Thanks a lot for sharing your valuable knowledge!!!

another anonymous

yes, nikonkon give us more to know if there is something.. i know very little about optical constructions and have no real opinion on the problem and no idea which of you both can be right.. so let us poor know please 😉

Zuma

The at this moment best budget walk around lens of Nikon is still the old trustworthy 28-105 3.5-4.5 (which also has a rather nice Macro function). It has a far better IQ than the current 24-120 of Nikon. Hopefully the new 24-120 will be much improved

I do hope this rumour is true and that the lens will be a good one. A Macro function would make it just perfect.

vincent thai

IM SOLD!

Mokee

Anything about a 70-200 f/4?
Thank you

Alfamatrix

Ive just move to Dslr and ive bought a nikon D200, and no lenses (i can use the lenses of my father , 18-55KIT, 55-200KIT and 70-300VR(Im 16))
im interested in bird photography..what lens should i buy, 300mm AFS or 80-400VR or should i wait for the replacement, if there is any.
Thanks,
A
Ps. Excuse my english , im from Peru

Char

500/4 or 600/4 + TC. If you do not have the money for that, forget about bird photography. That is what I did.

Although, I am not familiar with how close the birds come in Peru, so the situation might be different there from central Europe.

Char

Ah, and also buy a camourflage tent and have loooooots of time.

Alfamatrix

My father has a Lodge in the Amazon..
i go there maybe 4 times a year..
there birds are no shy there…

tim

I shoot sports, but form what i understand about bird photography is that the closer you can sneak/get them to come to you, the better. If your really good at that a 70 -200 could be enough. If you make noise or simply physically cant get closer (tall trees) get lenses. But remember exotic glass is expensive!

wow….. That would change my mindset about going D300s + 16-85 in the near future. A compact FX + 24-120 VR would be a game changer for enthusiasts, and I would definitely jump on the FX wagon.

Magnuss

Me to

le_eiji

the lens is obviously too long. F4 series should’ve been made for those who don’t need an F2.8 stop but need the same (or very close) optical performance at F8 as F2.8 zooms. It should’ve been 24-105mm at best. It seems non of f4 zooms will satisfy the requirement. I saw some samples of 16-35mm f4 ed vr shot at F8 and the falloff still visibly remains unlike the 14-24mm and it also has a very heavy barrel distortion at 16mm.

CDM

Where did you see those 16-35 F4 shots? I would like to see that, thanks.

No, it should not have to be stopped down to f8 to have acceptable performance. If anything, it should be sharp wide open at f4. The VR will give you the 2 to 3 f stops of shutter speed to deal with hand held shots and the rest are sharp off a tripod anyway. You can still get nice bokeh at f4 if the image is sharp from corner to corner. f4 does not have to mean poor quality. It can simply mean smaller and less expensive to produce.

I realize with f/2.8 pro-zooms, image quality wide-open is a must, and this may necessiate a bulky design. Added weight should not be much of a concern if the photographer will use it for half an hour (eg. show, wedding, competition, events)

But for these 24-120mm & 28-300mm lenses, Nikon please don’t make them bulky. They should be weight-balanced walkabout lenses, to be carried on the neck for a whole day maybe. So the max length must be no longer than a 18-200mm on a D300. Considering this fact, 28-200mm VR seems more plausible.

Or I’d rather stick the good old compact 28-200mm non-VR in front of D900 and be fine (for corner sharpness and added DoF, mostly at f/8 or f/11, ISO 100 on tripod & ISO 400 handheld). Plastic bayonet? Use it until it breaks 🙂

Zuma

28-200 or even 18-200mm is a too long range for a good overall IQ IMHO.

True when wide open. But I have no real problem with my 18-200mm. It’s corner-to-corner sharp even at 200mm f/11. I compared its 50mm setting at f/8 to 50mm f/1.8 at f/4. The observed difference is much more in color rendition, contrast & shadow detail, together with distortion rather than an obvious resolution advantage.

A walkabout lens may not fully exploit an hi-res FX sensor, compared to a prime or pro-zoom, but it’s the price to pay for practicality. Who want’s to lug and change lenses every two minute on a mountain hike, or in a busy city.

Richard

Yea, but you are probably close to running into diffraction at f11.

litebyte

That’s great news! Will buy one if it is true. A great combo with the 16-35 VR! Hopefull we will also see a 70-200 VR f/4
I remember on DPreview that Lammerse mentioned this lens already many weeks ago. Maybe he got the info from the same forum.

So what? A show stopper? And with a D700 or so. While if built, a 24-120mm f/2.8 would look like a bazooka 🙂

I’ve used an 200mm f/8 medium format lens with ISO 50 film, together with 2-stop polarizer. No need to mention, it was not AF. Plus, light metering was a nightmare.

New cameras are a breeze to use compared to what was offered just 10 years ago.

Rock Kenwell

It is actually going to be the:

Nikon Nikkor AF-S 25-105/F4G VRII if you must know.

How? Well, simple, the focal length is a secret hommage from Nikon to me, Rock Knwell, as they make up the numbers of my birthday and my lucky number too.
Coincidence?
I think not….

That is actually aslo the title of my 5th book:
“Coincidence? I think not! – Why my shots consistently own yours”

Come see me at the Nikon stand at PMA (Well, actually just behind it, between the toilets and the emergency exits) and if you quote’ AwesomeNikonRumors” I’ll waive my usual $5 signing fee if you buy any of my books.

Alfamatrix

The Rock Kenwell joke was funny the first time..

Rock Kenwell

resistance is futile….

Pat

It is not going to be small being f/4 at 120mm , plus VR. nikon’s f/4 line is neither small nor light compared to the canon’s ! they are just cheaper lenses that cost 2/3 of their f/2.8 big brothers.

I guess
1) 1.6 pounds heavy with the pro-build like 16-35VR.
2) Goes for $1099 or $1199 probably.

anyone wanna bet on it?

Nikko

If this lens were to perform less like a ‘superzoom’ and more like a regular range zoom I’d be very happy to own it. If it were in the same vein as the 16-35 in build quality and its weaknesses wouldn’t distract my clients I’d happily pay the same US$1260 for it.

Asking for a $700 24-120 f/4 VR FX zoom is absolutely ridiculous, particularly with yen exchange rates, it would have to be just as awful as the other 24-120s. New quality glass will not be cheap,as it was three years ago, for many many years to come, if ever. Be prepared for a $2400 24-70 2.8 VR.

If extending it to 120mm ends up degrading 24mm quality I’d prefer a 105mm long end, even 85mm, so long as 24mm and the long end both look good.

I look at this as a replacement for my 24-85mm 3.5-4.5 AF-S which is the best normal-range FX zoom I could find, but lacks VR, has marginal build quality for hard use, and needs to be stopped down to f/8 to please me at 24mm.

I’d rather have better IQ and variable 3.5-4.5 aperture than sacrifice quality for constant f/4…but IQ being equal obviously f/4 would be great.

It’s a positive sign though, good rumor Admin!

Ray

this sounds so good! Now I want to wait for this lens instead of the 16-35, but all depends on my budget in the end.

just wait till it actually get announced with a price that some people thinks its too high, then we will get a “if nikon keeps the price this high im going to switch to X brand!” How much this lens is not wanted instead a 70-200 f4 would be better etc. <3 humans.

NikorRyan

FINALLY!!! The Nikon landscape lens to match the Canon competitor.

Ron Krapwell

Don’t need it for my D40. The old one will work just as well – probably better with the amplifying qualities it gains from being on a superior camera.

Adam

Go Nikon! As a Canon shooter, this is awesome news. It’ll hopefully kick Canon up the back end to start making decent glass, and stop relying on the fact that only they make f/4 zooms as a reason not to improve quality (just like they did with the 5D- they said they saw no reason to update it simply because at the time there was no competition).

Richard

Surely Nikon must be using NCM equipment to produce their lenses. (Please comment if you actually know about their production capability.) If so, the computer does not really care what shape it is told to make a lens. Are they molding lenses and then grinding them or grinding them from a “blank”? In any event, how much more difficult or expensive can it be for Nikon to use a floating element design with some aspheric elements to produce great corner to corner sharpness. Throw in the new lens coating process and they should be able to produce a high quality lens that performs well wide open (where the resolution is greatest), but is simply slower than the “fast glass”.